Suspicion is not legal proof: Bombay High Court acquits murder accused

Suspicion, however strong, cannot be considered legal proof, the Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court recently observed while acquitting a person sentenced to life imprisonment in a murder case [Avdhoot Vithal Ghate v. State of Maharashtra]. .A Bench of Justices VK Jadhav and SK More observed that prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstances and only a suspicion was made out against the accused. "At the most suspicion is created against the appellant-accused, but the said suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the form of legal proof. The appellant-accused is thus entitled for benefit of doubt,” the order stated..The Court set aside the conviction order of the Sessions Court at Ahmednagar in the appeal filed by Avdhoot Ghate, a labourer from Jalgaon.Ghate had been booked in 2012 for allegedly killing a co-worker by smashing his head with a stone during a drunken quarrel between them.After examining sixteen witnesses in the trial which took place for over a year, the Sessions Court found Ghate guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life.Ghate challenged the order in appeal where he pleaded that prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence and there was no direct evidence against him to prove the chain of events.He also argued that the prosecution failed to establish his motive, if any..The prosecution meanwhile relied upon Ghate’s confessional statement, which was recorded by a Special Judicial Magistrate.The Magistrate had purportedly given Ghate 24 hours to rethink about the confession and in that way, concluded about the voluntary nature of confession.This confession had not been retracted throughout the stage of framing of charge and during course of examination of 16 prosecution witnesses.The prosecution also claimed that the witnesses identified the accused during identification parade..The Bench deduced from the evidence submitted that prosecution’s case rested entirely upon the circumstantial evidence and there was no direct evidence in the case.In such an event, motive plays a great role which was absent in the present case, the Court noted.The Bench also noted that the identification parade was not conducted in the manner as prescribed under the criminal manual.As for the confessional statement, the Bench did not find it to be true and voluntary and was not corroborated by other material.In light of these observations, Ghate’s conviction was set aside on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt..[Read Judgment]